Andrew Huberman· PhD
Folks like @BioLayne have argued (quite compellingly) that it’s calorie-density not seed oils per se that is problematic but there remains a very vocal “seed oils are a/the culprit” crowd.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Folks like @BioLayne have argued (quite compellingly) that it’s calorie-density not seed oils per se that is problematic but there remains a very vocal “seed oils are a/the culprit” crowd.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And I just haven't seen really compelling evidence that seed oils are the root cause of the problems that are being suggested. And I think this is a good example of whenever there's something that pops up in the fitness industry, there's always the opposite thing that pops up and is the reactionary, extreme reaction to whatever this thing was over here.
All the data say that if you separate out their caloric load, there's nothing inherently bad about seed oils, and et cetera.
um but I ALS think they've been overly demonized